This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Property was conveyed by the Epstein Family Partnership. Kmart wanted to make traffic improvements to its property and also wanted Levitz to remove its sign. The trial court enjoined Kmart from all improvements and held that Levitz had an implied easement or an easement by estoppel permitting the sign on the Kmart property. Kmart appealed. The appeals court held that the first injunction was too broad and remanded that portion of the case to the district court. The sign issue was then addressed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.